I think the most important questions Ive had to ask myself thus far have been:
Are there any cases that go against my statement? Any obvious anomaly's?
What would it take to be an anomaly to my case? Are theses realistic?
How can I further my audience from being prejudicial towards subjects which may have negatively effected them directly?
When I started think about exceptions to my rule of destruction I started with those that were chaotic. I begin thinking of characters such as the Joker, Tyler Durden, and Alex DeLarge, and I found that while my notion of what is justified and what is not does not necessarily coincide with theirs, its obvious that their actions were justified in their own consciousness. We cannot honestly expect any being to share exactly our ideals, our hates, our faiths, our motivations, or our goals; so why I do we automatically label someone who acts with a different purpose than our own something wrong? I sat for quite some time and explored many instances in which something was destroyed with seemingly no purpose, but in all cases it really did, it was just a matter of considering the mindset of the destroyer.
I tried desperately to find some case in which a person destroys for the mere purpose of destroying. I thought of the insane, I thought of the wicked, I even thought of righteous; but after putting them all on trial I simply couldn't find any exceptions.No matter how irrational or depraved an act of destruction may seem, it is always done with the best intentions.
One possible solution might be too keep subject matter which may affect my audience directly until further into the presentation; so that my formula for defamiliarization is already firmly established. This might take away from my scheme of increasingly magnitudinal acts so Ill have to consider these things for my final draft.
When I started think about exceptions to my rule of destruction I started with those that were chaotic. I begin thinking of characters such as the Joker, Tyler Durden, and Alex DeLarge, and I found that while my notion of what is justified and what is not does not necessarily coincide with theirs, its obvious that their actions were justified in their own consciousness. We cannot honestly expect any being to share exactly our ideals, our hates, our faiths, our motivations, or our goals; so why I do we automatically label someone who acts with a different purpose than our own something wrong? I sat for quite some time and explored many instances in which something was destroyed with seemingly no purpose, but in all cases it really did, it was just a matter of considering the mindset of the destroyer.
I tried desperately to find some case in which a person destroys for the mere purpose of destroying. I thought of the insane, I thought of the wicked, I even thought of righteous; but after putting them all on trial I simply couldn't find any exceptions.No matter how irrational or depraved an act of destruction may seem, it is always done with the best intentions.
One possible solution might be too keep subject matter which may affect my audience directly until further into the presentation; so that my formula for defamiliarization is already firmly established. This might take away from my scheme of increasingly magnitudinal acts so Ill have to consider these things for my final draft.